Middle and Late Bronze Age Metal Tools from the Aegean, Eastern ...

worn and battered from use; this damage perhaps is more indicative of masonry work. 395
Shaw recognized numerous possibilities for the tool including agricultural, carpentry,
quarrying, and masonry. 396 Double adze tool marks in Minoan chamber tombs, like
Katsamba (and possibly Armenoi), confirms that the implement could help fashion
underground mortuary facilities. 397 Cut marks on soft limestone ashlar blocks indicative
of “overlapping blows” suggest the tool’s usefulness in shaping architectural foundations
and facades. 398 Possible evidence for the use of the double adze on masonry is attested at
Phaistos among other Cretan sites, and potentially at Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios and
Alassa-Paliotaverna on Cyprus. 399
These marks resemble the previously-mentioned
traces of tool use in chamber tombs. The double adze may be best understood as an
implement for both carpentry and masonry work; the exact nature of a blade probably
depended upon its size and overall stability.
The distribution of double adzes, though limited quantitatively, is revealing. The
tool is not documented in the MBA, but is restricted entirely to the LBA. Furthermore,
the tool appears only in two regions: Crete and Cyprus (Table 4.12). On Crete, the tool
mainly dates to the Neopalatial period, while Catling attributed the Cypriot examples to
the 12 th century BC. It is more plausible that Cypriot double adzes belong to both the 13 th
and 12 th centuries (LC IIC-IIIA), for all but one Cypriot double adze came from hoard
395 Evely 1993, 63.
396 Shaw 2009, 41.
397 Shaw 1973a, 49, 52, figure 55.
398 Shaw 2009, 41; Evely 1993, 67.
399 Evely 1993, 67. The tool marks from Kalavassos and Alassa are not published, but I personally
inspected them. The markings on unfinished sides may be summarized as overlapping and deep blade cuts
that occur in a series or concentrated area. The repetitive blade marks were likely made by a chisel, ax or
adze; the stone was cut by a quick succession of blows to crudely fashion it. A cursory examination of
these deep and well defined blade cuttings on Late Cypriot architecture vary between 4.0 and 5.0 cm in
width although some cuts are as large as 6.0 cm. Based on the known cutting tools from Cyprus, a diverse
range of possible tools may have cut the ashlar blocks including broad chisels, adzes, axes and combination
tools (e.g. double axes, double adzes and ax-adzes). The double-sided instruments perhaps were ideal for
roughly shaping a stone block in a short amount of time.
168